Last week, Chris Mooney described how the Washington Times and a cadre of right-wing bloggers have been fearmongering about John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Now FoxNews has jumped on [...]

John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was nominated in the middle of December, but only confirmed by the senate three weeks ago. In the past, he has spoken in earnest about the importance of scientists [...]

Academics and science policy wonks did a double-take last spring when Rick Weiss took early retirement from a wildly successful, award-winning career at The Washington Post to join the Center for American Progress as a senior fellow and columnist for [...]

Good news came yesterday evening as the Senate confirmed John Holdren as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Jane Lubchenco as head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Despite several previous holds on the [...]

Juliet Eilperin reports that Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has placed a hold on votes to approve John Holdren’s appointment as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Jane Lubchenco’s appointment as leader of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Despite [...]

The National Academies’ highest award, the Public Welfare Medal, will go this year to Neal Lane. The medal honors the “extraordinary use of science for public good.” Lane is the Malcolm Gillis University Professor and Senior Fellow at the James [...]

Despite the inauguration of a new administration, conservatives have left a damaged scientific system and an archaic way of thinking about science policy. The outgoing policymakers cannot rewrite history for their own purposes.

In Washington, D.C. access is influence, and as we’ve argued several times here on Science Progress, in order to drive progressive science and tech policy across the entire federal government, the next science adviser to the president must be at the top level of the White House staff. And few would know better the importance of the science adviser holding cabinet-level rank than the last person to serve in the position at that status, Neal Lane.

The Washington rumor mill is buzzing with names of possible science appointees—and there are dozens of major science-related positions to fill. The questions appointees will face are an opportunity for a clear break with past approaches.

The AAU recommendations straddle the sciences and the humanities, but the item at the top of the group’s list is the very same as the top recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences: elevate the role of the president’s science adviser to a cabinet-level position, and appoint a highly qualified person to that position quickly.

For eight years running, the National Academy of Sciences has offered public advice on scientific appointments for the next administration and seen its advice largely ignored. This year, the tone is different, and it’s time to pay attention.

The National Academies have just offered a report detailing the most critical presidential science appointments in the executive branch and ways to streamline the process of getting new hires into their posts. Their first recommendation, however, is to hire the top science adviser at the level of assistant to the president.

Get our Email Newsletter:

Connect:

What We Work On

John Marburger has an impressive title: science adviser to the president and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. But his predecessors had a slightly different title: assistant to the president, the highest rank of staffers within the Executive Office of the President. Much has been made of President Bush's decision to appoint a science adviser to a diminished post, but the move resonated with the administration's repeated maneuvers to downplay, disregard, or launch all-out assaults on science over the course of the past eight years.
But on the eve of a new administration, it's time to look forward and think about the scientists who will advise the next president. The National Academies have just weighed in with their take on the issue, offering a report detailing the most critical presidential science appointments in the executive branch and ways to streamline the process of getting new hires into their posts. Their first recommendation, however, is to hire the top science adviser at the level of assistant to the president:

White House leadership in science and technology requires three steps. Immediately after the election, the president-elect should identify his candidate for the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST). This individual will provide advice, identify and recruit other science and technology presidential appointees. After inauguration, the President should promptly both appoint this person as APST and nominate him or her as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The director position should be cabinet-level, with an office in the Old Executive Office Building.

Many of the most pressing matters of the new administration will require forthright scientific advice, and only through an assistant to the president who can participate in cabinet-level discussions and coordinate with other senior staffers in economic, domestic, national security, and energy policy will the next commander in chief get the advice that he needs. NAS is not the first group to argue that the science adviser post must be elevated back to the assistant level.
Moreover, NAS recommends that the president not dawdle on the matter of the thousands of other appointments across the administration. That means getting to work well in advance. Like today.
Who do readers think the next president should appoint as the top science adviser?

What We Believe

Science Progress proceeds from the propositions that scientific inquiry is among the finest expressions of human excellence, that it is a crucial source of human flourishing, a critical engine of economic growth, and must be dedicated to the common good. Scientific inquiry entails global responsibilities. It should lead to a more equitable, safer, and healthier future for all of humankind.